linux-kernel - [Question] sched: Should nr_uninterruptible be decremented in ttwu_do

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CADZ9YHicin2YjGm_m9B0LMv3NW1Z3cb7HSCaqwycFmVfRpvpWA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 11 Jan 2012 23:22:29 +0600
From:	Rakib Mullick <rakib.mullick@...il.com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: [Question] sched: Should nr_uninterruptible be decremented in ttwu_do_activate()?

Hello all,

In ttwu_do_activate(), we're decrementing nr_uninterruptible if
p->sched_contributes_to_load (for SMP=y). But, we're also decrementing
nr_uninterruptible from activate_task at the same path. Why we're
doing it twice for a single task activation path?


Thanks,
Rakib
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/